of 51
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
1/51
Cornell University ILR School
DigitalCommons@ILR
CAHRS Working Paper SeriesCenter for Advanced Human Resource Studies
(CAHRS)
9-1-1999
Eects of Personality on Executive Career Successin the U.S. and Europe
John W. BoudreauCornell University
Wendy R. BoswellCornell University
Timothy A. JudgeUniversity of Iowa
Follow this and additional works at: hp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp
Part of the Human Resources Management Commons
is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies (CAHRS) at DigitalCommons@ILR. It
has been accepted for inclusion in CAHRS Working Paper Series by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information,
please [email protected].
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/633?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/633?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
2/51
Eects of Personality on Executive Career Success in the U.S. and Europe
Abstract
e present study extended prior career success models by incorporating traits from the ve-factor model of
personality (oen termed the "Big Five") and several dimensions of extrinsic (remuneration, ascendancy, joblevel, employability) and intrinsic (job, life, and career satisfaction) career success. e model examined bothdirect eects, and the mediating eects of an array of human capital and motivation variables derived fromprior research. Data were collected from two large samples of American and European executives. Someresults supported prior research: Extroversion related positively, and neuroticism negatively, to intrinsic careersuccess across both the U.S. and European samples. Some results diered from expectations: (1)Conscientiousness was mostly unrelated to extrinsic success and negatively related to intrinsic success in bothsamples; (2) Agreeableness was negatively related to extrinsic success in both samples. Dierences emerged
between the European and American samples, in that: (1) Neuroticism associated with lower levels ofextrinsic success for the American executives but not the Europeans; (2) Extroversion associated with higherlevels of extrinsic success for the European executives, but not the Americans. For both samples, humancapital and motivational variables associated predictably with career success, but seldom mediated the
relationship between personality and career success.
Keywords
remuneration, ascendancy, job, employability, life, career, American, European, personality, human capital
Disciplines
Human Resources Management
Comments
Suggested Citation
Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R. & Judge, T. A. (1999). Eects of personality on executive career success in the U.S.and Europe (CAHRS Working Paper #99-12). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and LaborRelations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.hp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/111Replaces Working Paper 97-30Published inJournal of Vocational Behaviour, 58, 53-81
is article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: hp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/111
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/111?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/111?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%2Fcahrswp%2F111&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
3/51
CAHRS / Cornell University187 Ives HallIthaca, NY 14853-3901 USATel. 607 255-9358www.ilr.cornell.edu/CAHRS/
WWORKINGORKINGPPAPERAPERSSERIESERIES
Effects of Personality on Executive CareerSuccess in the U.S. and Europe
John W. BoudreauWendy R. BoswellTimothy A. Judge
Working Paper 9 9 - 1 2
Advancing the World of Work
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
4/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 1
Effects of Personality on Executive Career
Success in the U.S. and Europe
John W. Boudreau and Wendy R. BoswellCenter for Advanced Human Resource Studies
School of Industrial and Labor RelationsCornell University
Timothy A. JudgeDept. of Management and Organizations
College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Iowa
Working Paper 99-12
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs
This paper has not undergone formal review or approval of the faculty of the ILR School. It isintended to make results of Center research available to others interested in preliminary form to
encourage discussion and suggestions.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
5/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 2
Author Notes:The NEO-FFI is used by special permission of the Publisher,
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., 16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549,
from the NEO Five Factor Inventory, by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae, Copyright 1978, 1985,
1989 by PAR, Inc. Further use or reproduction of the NEO-FFI is prohibited without permission
of PAR, Inc.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John W. Boudreau,
CAHRS, ILR School, Cornell University, 393 Ives Hall, Ithaca, New York, USA 14853-3901. E-
mail to [email protected].
We wish to thank Tove Hammer, Brent Smith, Helen DeCieri, Peter Dowling and the
editor and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this manuscript.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
6/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 3
Abstract
The present study extended prior career success models by incorporating traits from the
five-factor model of personality (often termed the "Big Five") and several dimensions of extrinsic
(remuneration, ascendancy, job level, employability) and intrinsic (job, life, and career
satisfaction) career success. The model examined both direct effects, and the mediating effects
of an array of human capital and motivation variables derived from prior research. Data were
collected from two large samples of American and European executives. Some results
supported prior research: Extroversion related positively, and neuroticism negatively, to intrinsic
career success across both the U.S. and European samples. Some results differed from
expectations: (1) Conscientiousness was mostly unrelated to extrinsic success and negatively
related to intrinsic success in both samples; (2) Agreeableness was negatively related to
extrinsic success in both samples. Differences emerged between the European and American
samples, in that: (1) Neuroticism associated with lower levels of extrinsic success for the
American executives but not the Europeans; (2) Extroversion associated with higher levels of
extrinsic success for the European executives, but not the Americans. For both samples, human
capital and motivational variables associated predictably with career success, but seldom
mediated the relationship between personality and career success.
Career Success
Executives
Personality
International
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
7/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 4
Executive Career Success in the U.S. and Europe: Effects of Personality
Career success has been an important and popular focus of investigation in the
management literature. Judge, Cable, Boudreau, and Bretz (1995) defined career success as
the extrinsic and intrinsic outcomes or achievements individuals have accumulated as a result of
their work experiences (Gattiker & Larwood, 1988). Career success encompasses both
extrinsic success elements, reflecting objective and externally visible criteria such as pay and
ascendancy (Jaskolka, Beyer, & Trice, 1985), as well as intrinsic success elements which are
subjectively defined by the individual, such as career or job satisfaction (Gattiker & Larwood,
1988).
Career success reflects the accumulated interaction between a variety of individual,
organizational and societal norms, behaviors and work practices. Thus, it is an important
element in our understanding of the long-term effects of worker mobility both within and across
organizations. Understanding factors associated with career success is essential to our
understanding of the relationships between individual traits and behaviors, organizational
practices such as career planning and development, and societal and labor market processes
that reflect what is ultimately valued in the labor market.
Because the intrinsic and extrinsic elements of career success are only moderately
correlated, and often influenced by different factors (Bray & Howard, 1980; Harrell, 1969),
studies of extrinsic and intrinsic career success require considering a wide range of influences
including motivation, human capital, and possibly dispositional factors. Studies focusing on the
career success of managers working in a single U.S. company (e.g., Howard & Bray, 1988)have provided valuable insights, but the focus on a single organization limits the degree to
which differences in labor markets, industries, and company characteristics can be examined.
Drawing on theory and research from psychology, human resource management, and
labor economics, Judge et al. (1995) examined career success by focusing on 1,400 executives
employed in a diverse sample of U.S. organizations. They examined the extrinsic career
success outcomes of pay and ascendancy (number of promotions), and intrinsic career success
outcomes of career and job satisfaction. The Judge et al. model proposed five influences on
career success: (1) demographics (e.g., age, race, sex), (2) human capital (e.g., education,experience), (3) motivation (e.g., hours desired and actually worked), (4) organization (e.g.,
organizational success, size), and (5) industry/region. They found that each category of
variables influenced executive career success, with demographic, human capital, and
motivational variables being most important.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
8/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 5
Enduring individual dispositions play a key role in organizational behavior (House,
Shane, & Herold, 1996), possibly including career success. Dispositional variables may affect
career success directly, and indirectly through variables such as performance, motivation, and
human capital, which in turn affect career success. Adding dispositions thus may lead to better
understanding of the role of motivation and human capital in career success, as well as
revealing new direct effects that add to predictive power.
Virtually all prior career success research focused solely on a single country or region,
usually the U.S. The increasingly global nature of work and careers emphasizes the importance
of examining international differences, which may reflect different labor markets, employment
policies, and management practices. As noted earlier, career success may be particularly suited
to reveal the effects of these differences, compared to more job or organization-specific work
outcomes.
The present study extends prior models by: (1) Examining a broader set of extrinsic and
intrinsic career success indicators; (2) Incorporating personality traits; and (3) Focusing on a
diverse sample of both U.S. and European managers. This extended model allows us to
examine the direct and indirect effects of personality traits on career success.
The Extended Career Success Model
Figure 1 depicts the complete model examined in this study, with the shaded areas
representing constructs and relationships that have been added, and the unshaded areas
representing the original model. For brevity, we refer the reader to the Judge et al. (1995) articlefor the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the unshaded portions, and focus here on
the extensions.1
Additional Career Success Dimensions
Judge et al. (1995) measured extrinsic career success with remuneration and
ascendancy, and intrinsic success with job and career satisfaction. Here we include two
additional extrinsic aspects of career success, CEO proximity (Dreher & Bretz, 1991) and
1 We did not include three categories of variables from the Judge et al. (1995) study (demographic, organizational, andindustry/region) in the LISREL model. The model already included 230 and 167 freed parameters for the American andEuropean samples, respectively. Adding the 22 additional control variables would more than double the number of estimatedparameters, which would violate Bentlers (1985) recommended rule of thumb of five observations for every estimatedparameter. To investigate the effect of including all the control variables on the results, we regressed each career successvariable on all the variables in the Judge et al. study, as well as the Big Five traits. The results for the Big Five traits were similarto those reported here. Only seven of 65 links changed significance across the two samples, and no significant hypothesizedlinkage in the LISREL model became nonsignificant when the additional control variables were added.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
9/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 6
employability (Kilduff & Day, 1994), and one additional element of intrinsic success, life
satisfaction (Judge & Bretz, 1994).
CEO Proximity within one's organization denotes higher responsibility and authority, all
else equal (Dreher & Bretz, 1991). Judge and Bretz (1994) argued that job level should be
added to extant definitions of extrinsic career success, particularly when studying high-level
managers and executives. CEO reflects power, authority, and responsibility in the current
organization, while ascendancy and remuneration reflect success relative to prior career stages,
or compared to other organizations.
Figure 1.
Hypothesized model of executive career success.
(Note: Shaded areas represent variables that are unique to this study.)
Personality Traits
Neuroticism Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Motivation
Hours worked per week
Evenings worked per week Hours of work desired Work centrality
Human Capital
Education (level, quality, Ivy) Corporate board Job and organizational tenure International experience
Career Success
Extrinsic success
Remuneration Number of promotions
Intrinsic success
Job satisfaction Career satisfaction
CEO proximity Employability rating
Life satisfaction
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
10/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 7
Employability is arguably an increasingly relevant indicator of career success as multiple-
employer and even multiple-profession careers become more common (e.g., Barrett, 1999;
Blumfield, 1997; Cashman & Feldman, 1995; Ettorre, 1996; Kissler, 1994; Ruth, Bruner, &
Chamernik, 1995). Kilduff and Day (1994) argued that the capacity for mobility is a key factor in
achieving extrinsic success in managerial careers. Employability is different from mobility (e.g.,
movement across geographic areas or jobs), because it reflects the potential attractiveness of
an individual to other employers as judged by gatekeepers such as search firms. Thus, it may
capture career success elements not reflected in ascendancy or remuneration, by reflecting the
views of external constituents.
Life satisfaction is important because achieving satisfaction with ones job or career at
the expense of life satisfaction suggests limited career success (Bray & Howard, 1980; Judge &
Bretz, 1994). Adding life satisfaction to career success also acknowledges the importance of
work-life (or work-family) balance (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness,
1999). Life satisfaction seems particularly relevant in cross-national research, as the challenge
of achieving a balance between life facets (e.g., work and family) may differ with social policies.
For example, the U.S. arguably places greater responsibility for social support on individuals
and their employers, compared to many European countries (e.g., Germany and Scandinavia).
Thus, incorporating life satisfaction into models of career success may reveal differences across
countries better than job or career satisfaction.
The Big Five Personality Traits and Career Success
In Figure 1 personality traits relate to career success both directly and throughmotivation and human capital. Motivation and human capital may change over time or with
different work situations, but traits, such as personality, are enduring and stable individual
predispositions that are either directly associated with career outcomes, or lead individuals to
behave or seek out experiences that are associated with career outcomes (Tharenou, 1997).
The effects of such enduring traits may be particularly evident among managers and executives,
because objective performance measures are difficult to obtain, incomplete, or use
incomparable units (e.g., sales, costs, growth), across different organizations or even within the
same organization. As stated by Siegal and Ghiselli (1971), traits of general importance inmanagerial positions are likely to form the basis of the evaluation of him (p. 130).
Personality might directly associate with extrinsic career success if traits such as
assertiveness, emotional stability, and leadership motivation fit the tasks of the executive role
(Tharenou, 1997), enhancing effective leadership, managing social interactions, and making
complex and high-impact decisions. A direct association between personality and intrinsic
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
11/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 8
success could occur if personality traits, such as extroversion (e.g., Furnam & Zacherl, 1986;
Headey & Wearing, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1991), create a general tendency to react positively
to outcomes of executive work, to act in ways compatible with the executive environment (e.g.,
Aryee, Chay, & Tan, 1994; Bretz & Judge, 1994), or to strive for success (Super, 1957;
Tharenou, 1997). Personality may also affect career success indirectly through human capital
and motivational variables. Those more open to new experiences may accept more international
assignments, or Type A individuals may be more likely to work evenings or long hours.
Prior research suggests that some dispositions do associate with career success
(Ghiselli, 1968; Ghiselli, 1969; Ghiselli, 1963; Siegel & Ghiselli, 1971). Tharenou (1997)
reviewed the relatively few studies that investigated the personality correlates of career
success, concluding that achievement orientation is clearly related to managerial advancement,
with other traits receiving moderate support such as self-confidence and self-monitoring. To
date, however, no study has examined the role of personality within a more comprehensive
model, such as that presented in Figure 1, and virtually all research has focused on one or two
personality variables at a time. No prior research has examined a broad array of personality
traits, despite growing consensus supporting a general personality taxonomy.
Consensus is emerging that a five-factor model of personality, often termed the Big
Five (Goldberg, 1990), can be used to describe the many salient aspects of personality. The
Big Five can be found in virtually any measure of personality (e.g., McCrae & John, 1992),
including the analysis of the trait adjectives in many languages, factor reanalyses of existing
multidimensional measures, and decisions made by expert judges based on existing measures
(see Mount & Barrick, 1995). The cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor structure has
been established through research in many countries, including Germany, Portugal, Korea,
China, Israel, and the Netherlands (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Evidence indicates that the Big
Five are fairly heritable and stable over time (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman, 1989), although
the role of the environment in shaping features of ones personality should not be dismissed.
The Big Five traits have some theoretical justification as well. Buss (1996) draws from
evolutionary theory in describing how the Big Five serve adaptive purposes in problem solving
and social interactions such as forming cooperative alliances and negotiating hierarchies.
The dimensions comprising the five-factor model are neuroticism, extroversion,
openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Neuroticism represents the
tendency to exhibit poor emotional adjustment and experience negative affect such as anxiety,
insecurity, and hostility. Extroversion represents the tendency to be sociable, assertive, active,
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
12/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 9
and experience positive affect such as energy, zeal, and excitement. Openness is the
disposition to be imaginative, nonconforming, unconventional, and autonomous. Agreeableness
is the tendency to be trusting, compliant, caring, and gentle. Conscientiousness is comprised of
two related facets, achievement and dependability. Conscientiousness has found to be the
major component of integrity (Hogan & Ones, 1997).
Comparing U.S. and European Executives
There is a significant need for research on international human resource management
(DeCieri & Dowling, 1999; Ferris, Hochwarter, Buckley, Harrell-Cook & Frink, 1999), particularly
for studies using rigorous research designs that move beyond descriptive case studies (Schuler
& Florkiowlski, 1996). Career development is particularly lacking in international research (Ferris
et al., 1999; Ricks et al. 1990) that examines the cross-cultural generalizability of findings
(Sullivan, 1999, p. 476).
Yet international human resource management scholars lament the lack of sufficient
theoretical perspective (Arvey, Bhagat & Salas, 1991; Ferris et al. 1999), which limits our ability
to develop strong cross-cultural propositions. While not a comprehensive international model,
the career success model in Figure 1 addresses, in part, the call for more quantitative and
theory-based research frameworks in the area of careers.
Our purpose in comparing findings from the model across two different regions is in the
spirit of the Type II research suggested by Bhagat and McQuaid (1982, p. 678) in which one
observes organizational phenomena in different cultures. It is useful to compare U.S. and
Western European managers because both regions have had relatively stable social and
political systems for 20 to 30 years during which a sample of top executives would have
pursued their careers. Our focus on career success argued against economies that have not
yet, or only recently, developed to the point where broad career patterns can be discerned (e.g.,
many parts of Asia and Africa), or have undergone fundamental social and economic changes
affecting careers and management (e.g., Central and Eastern Europe).
Western Europe has also been the subject of considerable discussion regarding
management systems and leadership. Hofstede (1991) shows that most European countries,
particularly Germany, Switzerland, Finland, and Austria, score higher on uncertainty avoidance
(the tendency to be threatened by uncertain or unknown situations, and a desire to reduce
ambiguity) than the U.S. This suggests a higher tolerance among American managers for
ambiguity, deviant ideas, open-end discussion and decisions, and reliance on few formal rules
(e.g., Hammer, 1999). Thus the U.S. might favor those high in openness. Hoftstede (1991) also
notes that uncertainty avoidance is positively related to social indicators of anxiety. Neuroticism
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
13/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 10
might be more socially distinctive in the U.S. If neuroticism is detrimental to career success, this
might suggest a greater detrimental effect in the U.S. than in Europe.
Hofstede (1991) suggests that European countries studied here are somewhat more
collectivist than the U.S., which is more individualistic. This is reinforced by observations about
social and workplace systems in Europe and the U.S. (Ulman, Eichengreen, & Dickens, 1993).
Hammer (1999) notes that, compared with the operations of American corporations, European
firms and their managers are less autonomous. The autonomy is constrained at the national
level by culture and legislation, at the corporate, or strategic, level of the firm by patterns of
ownership, and at the workplace level by trade union involvement and required worker-
participation programs (p.104-105). Hammer concludes, to manage within such constraints
requires a leadership style, or process, that recognizes the reality of conflicting group interests
and the rights of multiple stakeholders (p. 105).
Brewster (1994) and Brewster and Larsen (1992) noted evidence of a European
approach to HR that, compared to a U.S. model, places greater emphasis on country
differences, adopts a more positive perspective toward unions, attaches greater importance to
external constituents (e.g., governments and communities), and recognizes the more limited
autonomy (or greater support) afforded to managers (p. 83). Germany has been characterized
as "mechanistic" and legalistic in its approach (Gaugler & Wiltz, 1992). This suggests that social
skills and connections may be more important for European executives, so extroversion may
have a greater impact in Europe. Conscientiousness, to the extent that it reflects dependability
in informal social contracts, might have a greater effect in Europe.In summary, the present career success model associates motivational and human
capital factors with career success, based on the theory and empirical evidence noted in Judge
et al. (1995). The model extends prior research by incorporating the Big-Five personality traits,
with both direct and indirect associations with career success. We now develop specific
hypotheses for both the direct and indirect effects of each personality trait on career success.
Hypotheses Regarding Overall and Direct Effects of Personality Traits
Career success is different from job performance, but the most extensive application of
the Big-Five personality model has been in personnel selection, with substantial evidence that
the five factors predict job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Rothstein, & Jackson,
1991). We briefly review this evidence and note its implications for career success, before
reviewing the smaller body of research directly linking personality and career success. Three of
the Big Five traitsconscientiousness, neuroticism, and extroversionconsistently relate to
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
14/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 11
managerial job performance. Conscientiousness and job performance were positively related in
meta-analytic investigations of American (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and European (Salgado,
1997) employees. Neuroticism and job performance were negatively associated in two meta-
analyses (Salgado, 1997; Tett et al., 1991). Extroversion did not display a significant correlation
with job performance across all jobs, but Barrick and Mounts (1991) meta-analysis suggested a
positive relationship specifically for managers. Even considering that pay and performance do
not always significantly correlate within particular jobs (Gerhart & Milkovich, 1992), and that job
performance is not the only factor in promotions and mobility, it seems reasonable to expect that
consistently high levels of performance will associate with higher levels of long-term career
success, thus suggesting that conscientiousness and extroversion may relate positively to
career success, and neuroticism may relate negatively.
Job performance and career success are different, so it is important to look beyond
research on personality and performance. For example, Ghiselli (1963) found that self-
assurance predicted managers occupational level, and Ghiselli (1969) found that self-
assurance, decisiveness, achievement motivation, and need for self-actualization were valid
predictors of stockbroker success. Self-assurance and initiative also positively associated with
executive pay (Siegel & Ghiselli, 1971). Prior career success research has seldom employed
the Big-Five personality taxonomy, but prior research on other personality traits is informative
regarding each of the Big Five traits.
Neuroticism. Tharenou (1997) suggested that managerial positiveness or self-
confidence was linked to advancement. In a longitudinal study of managerial progress, Howard
and Bray (1988) found that ratings of optimism, self-confidence, and well adjustedness (low
neuroticism) predicted advancement and promotions. Self-confidence also was found to predict
earnings in a sample of MBA graduates five and twenty years after the original personality data
were collected (Harrell, 1969; Harrell & Alpert, 1989). Self-confidence, optimism, and emotional
adjustment are characteristic of low neuroticism (Goldberg, 1990; Mount & Barrick, 1995),
suggesting that neuroticism should be negatively related to extrinsic career success. Emotional
stability may be particularly important for individuals at higher organizational levels
characterized with high levels of stress and external stimulation (Seibert & Kraimer, 1999).
Neuroticism may be negatively related to intrinsic career success as well. Several studies have
revealed a negative relationship between neuroticism and job satisfaction (Furnam & Zacherl,
1986; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), and life satisfaction (Headey & Wearing, 1989; McCrae &
Costa, 1991), ostensibly because neuroticism is linked to the experience of negative affect
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
15/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 12
(Watson & Clark, 1997). There has been no prior research relating neuroticism and career
satisfaction, a gap filled by the present study. In sum, neuroticism appears to associate with
negative reactions to life and work situations particularly when they are demanding or stressful.
H-1: Neuroticism will be negatively related to (a) extrinsic and (b) intrinsic career
success.
Extroversion. There is relatively little prior research on the relationship between
extroversion and extrinsic career success, but the social nature of managerial and executive
work suggests that those individuals who are energized by social situations (extroverts) should
be more extrinsically successful. Childhood ratings of shyness (low extroversion) were
negatively associated with adult occupational status (Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1988). Among
Stanford MBA graduates, extroversion was positively related to salary (e.g., Harrell, 1969;
Harrell & Alpert, 1989). Extroversion associates with activity and dominance, typically
associated with success in positions of leadership (Dunn, Mount, Barrick, & Ones, 1995).
Regarding intrinsic success, extroversion has been related to job and life satisfaction in
numerous studies (e.g., Furnam & Zacherl, 1986; Headey & Wearing, 1989; McCrae & Costa,
1991), presumably because extroverts are predisposed to experience positive emotions (Costa
& McCrae, 1992; Watson & Clark, 1997). Extroverts may also be more likely to take actions to
rectify unsatisfactory work situations thus leading to more positive experiences (Seibert &
Kraimer, 1999). Thus,
H-2: Extroversion will be positively related to (a) extrinsic and (b) intrinsic career
success.
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness emerged as the best predictor of managerial job
performance in meta-analyses of studies of Americans (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and Europeans
(Salgado, 1997). Few studies have explored the direct association between conscientiousness
and extrinsic career success, but considerable evidence supports a major facet of
conscientiousnessachievement orientation. Tharenou (1997) noted that achievement
orientation is most consistently related to managerial advancement. Barrick and Mount (1991)
reported a true correlation of .17 between salary and conscientiousness, though based on a
small number of available correlations (k=5). McClelland and Boyatzis (1982) reported that
leadership motivation (moderate-to-high need for power, low need for affiliation, and high
activity inhibition) and need for achievement predicted managerial job level. Conscientiousness
is associated with being goal-directed, persistent, and well organized, which seem likely to
associate with career success.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
16/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 13
H-3: Conscientiousness will be positively related to extrinsic career success.
Agreeableness. Much less research exists on agreeableness and career success,
though Howard and Bray (1988) reported a negative correlation between affability (nurturing,
not aggressive, sympathetic, supportive) and ratings of management potential. Agreeableness
associates with being trusting, submissive, and compliant, which could also be perceived as
navet, docility, and a tendency to follow rather than lead. We include agreeableness in the
model to address the limited empirical evidence. However, the lack of prior evidence coupled
with the non- significant association between agreeableness and job performance precluded a
formal hypothesis.
Openness. It is also difficult to support a hypothesis linking openness to career success.
To our knowledge, there has been no research on this link, nor on personality traits associated
with openness. As with agreeableness, we include openness in the model in part to address the
lack of empirical evidence on this question, but it is not possible to suggest a hypothesis
regarding the effect of openness on career success.
Hypotheses Regarding Indirect Effects of Personality Through Human Capital and Motivation
The model shown in Figure 1 suggests that personality may relate to career success
through its association with human capital and motivation, which in turn affect career success
(Judge et al., 1995). No prior research has tested both direct and indirect effects
simultaneously, and most have not employed the Big Five taxonomy as we do here. Still,
previous findings do have implications for the model in Figure 1.
Regarding human capital variables, Dearborn and Hastings (1987) found that women
classified as Type A personality had shorter job tenure compared to those classified as Type B
personality. Type A personalities have been positively associated with neuroticism, and
conscientiousness, and negatively associated with agreeableness (Contrada, Leventhal &
OLeary, 1990; Mayer & Sutton, 1996). Close and Bergmann (1979) found an inverse
relationship between dogmatism and educational attainment. Dogmatism has been associated
with being closed-minded, which is similar to low openness. Three studies specifically focused
on the Big Five, found that academic achievement associated negatively with neuroticism and
positively with openness and conscientiousness (Digman, 1989; Hough, 1998; 1997). Openness
has also been linked to the tendency to learn from experiences, which has been identified as a
key trait of successful managers, particularly those who succeed in international assignments
(Montagliani & Giacalone, 1997; Spreitzer, McCall & Mahoney, 1997).
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
17/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 14
Research has also linked personality to motivation variables (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss,
1993; Hansson, Hogan, Johnson, & Schroeder, 1983; Tang, 1986). Much of this research has
focused on the influence of the Type A personality pattern, compared to the Type B pattern.
Dearborn and Hastings (1987) found that women classified as Type A personality worked longer
hours. Hansson et al. (1983) found those classified as Type A to be more ambitious and Tang
(1986) found Type As spend more leisure time on work tasks. A recent meta-analysis (Brown,
1996) found that individuals predisposed to be highly job involved were also more likely to have
higher personality traits such as Protestant work ethic and self-esteem. One prior study related
the Big Five traits to motivation. Barrick et al. (1993) found that sales representatives high in
conscientiousness were more likely to set goals and be committed to those goals, which in turn
was positively associated with job success (i.e., sales volume and supervisory ratings of job
performance).
Thus, the small amount of prior evidence suggests an intriguing pattern of relationships
between personality with human capital and motivation. Conscientiousness and extroversion
appear to associate positively with the motivation and human capital variables studied and,
through Type A personality, may relate positively to work motivation. An opposite effect for
agreeableness is expected as this trait has been linked negatively to a Type A personality
pattern. Openness seems to relate positively to the human capital variables of educational
attainment and taking on new challenges. Neuroticism appears negatively related to educational
attainment. The paucity of prior research, however, precludes specific hypotheses regarding
individual personality dimensions with individual human capital and motivation variables. As anecessary first step, we will examine whether the personality dimensions associate with career
success directly, or are generally mediated through human capital and motivation variables.
H-4: Motivation and human capital variables will partly mediate the relationship
between personality and career success.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were executives who had an ongoing relationship with a large international
executive search firm. The search firm does not accept applications or resumes from individualssearching for positions, but instead potential candidates are identified only in direct response to
a clients search for a specific position. Further, the search firm serves clients of all sizes,
industries, and regions. This suggests that the sample drawn for this study should be fairly
representative of the general population of executives. Data were collected in 1995 and 1996
from executives working in the United States and from executives working in Europe. Because
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
18/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 15
the data collection procedures varied somewhat between the two samples, the participants and
procedure are described separately for each sample.
American sample. Surveys were mailed to 10,000 executives contained in the search
firms database. Executives were informed that participation was completely voluntary and
confidential. The surveys were returned directly to the authors in pre-addressed, postage-paid
envelopes. Surveys were encoded so that those returned could be matched with information
contained in the search firm's database. A total of 1,885 surveys were returned (19% response
rate). To determine whether respondents were representative of nonrespondents, the two
groups were compared based on information contained in the search firms database. Results
suggested respondents were significantly more likely to be married (MR=86%, MNR=77%), were
older (MR=47.2, MNR=45.4), and had more children (MR=1.8, MNR=1.5) than nonrespondents.
However, respondents and nonrespondents did not differ with respect to any core study variable
(i.e., any career outcome). Further, the demographics (i.e., primarily white and male) of our
sample reflect the executive population (U.S. Census Bureau, 1998). The majority of
respondents were White (95%) and male (90%). Average age of respondents was 47 years.
Average remuneration earned by executives (including bonuses) was $164,618. The average
executive had been promoted 7.9 times in his or her career, and was positioned 2 job levels
below the CEO. The average number of employees in the executive's organization was 10,140.
Executives were employed in a variety of industries, with the most common being high
technology.
European sample. Surveys were distributed to a sample of 10,000 executives who had a
relationship with the European offices of the search firm. For the most part, the survey was
identical to the American survey. Because the search firm did not maintain a database of the
career profiles of European executives, all variables were measured within the survey.
Accordingly, surveys were returned anonymously. A total of 1,871 surveys were returned (19%
response rate). Ninety-four percent of executives were male and 87% indicated that they spoke
English fluently. Average age of respondents was 42.4 years. Average remuneration earned by
executives (including bonuses) was $158,461. The average executive had been promoted 4
times in his/her career, was positioned 1.9 job levels below the CEO. The average number of
employees in the executive's organization was 9,051. Although there were 66 nationalities
represented in the sample, the most common were the following: German (59%), Danish (12%),
Swiss (6%), Finnish (6%), Spanish (4%), Portuguese (2%), Dutch (2%), Austrian (2%), and
French (2%).
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
19/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 16
Measures
Big five traits. The Big Five traits were measured with the NEO Personality Inventory, the
most widely used and extensively validated measure of the five-factor model (Costa & McCrae,
1992). Each of the five traits in the NEO-FFI are measured by asking respondents to indicate
their agreement with 12 statements, using a 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree scale.
Example statements include, I often feel tense and jittery (neuroticism), My life is fast-paced
(extroversion), I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract ideas (openness), I would rather
cooperate with others than compete with them (agreeableness), and I have a clear set of goals
and work toward them in an orderly fashion (conscientiousness). Reliabilities of the NEO scales
were as follows (coefficient alpha [] reliability estimates are provided first for the American
sample, followed by the for the European sample): Neuroticism, =.82, .74; Extroversion,
=.77, .70; Openness, =.72, .71; Agreeableness, =.71, .58; Conscientiousness, =.80, .71.
One advantage of the NEO is that extensive cross-cultural evidence exists regarding its
validity. The NEO has been validated in many European countries (e.g., Czechoslovakia,
France, Germany, Holland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden). Recently, Costa
and McCrae (1997) compared the factor structure of the NEO across seven cultures and found
that the American factor structure was closely reproduced. To investigate the generalizability of
the NEO with our data, we conducted a principal components analysis of the NEO for the
American and European samples. Following McCrae and Costas (1997) procedure, we
investigated factorial equivalence by computing congruence coefficients between varimax-
rotated principal components from the two samples (essentially, these represent the correlations
between the factor loadings of each sample). The congruence coefficients were .92 for
neuroticism, .82 for extroversion, .88 for openness, .93 for agreeableness, and .90 for
conscientiousness. These are comparable to those reported by McCrae and Costa (1997) and
suggest that the factor structure of the NEO is comparable between the two samples.
Remuneration. Recognizing that a large part of an executives income is in the form of
incentive-based pay, remuneration is defined here to include salary, bonuses, stock options,
and other forms of cash compensation. For the American sample, data on total annual
remuneration was obtained from the search firms database. Because the archival database
was not available for European executives, their total remuneration (salary, bonus, stock,
options, and other forms of cash compensation) was self-reported on the survey. It would
appear the archival and self-reported measures are equivalent as, for the American sample,
self-reported compensation correlated highly with the archival measure (r=.85, p < .01).
Because most remuneration measures are disproportionately affected by a relatively few values
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
20/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 17
at the high end of the distribution, this degree of skewness can render standard statistical tests
inappropriate. Accordingly, consistent with standard practice in wage regressions (e.g., Kerr &
Kren, 1992), we normalized the distribution of the remuneration variable by computing its
natural log.
Ascendancy. For both the American and European samples, ascendancy was measured
on the survey by asking executives to indicate the total number of promotions they received in
their career. We used the natural log of number of promotions because the data plots revealed
a skewed distribution.
CEO proximity. For both samples, CEO proximity was measured on the survey by
asking executives to report the number of job levels below the CEO they were positioned in their
current organization. The natural log was also used to transform this variable, due to skewness
in the data. These natural log values were then multiplied by negative one, to create an index of
CEO proximity. In this way, more negative values indicate lower career success, so it is
directionally consistent with the other extrinsic career success measures (remuneration,
ascendancy, and employability).
Employability. An accomplishment rating taken from the search firms archival database
was used to assess employability. The search firm uses this information when deciding whether
to recommend a candidate for a position at another company. The rating is a three-item scale
comprised of: (1) flexibility and adaptability, (2) proficiency in current job, and (3) appearance,
stature, and personal impact. Each of these specific ratings is evaluated on a 3=low, 4=average,
and 5=high scale. This measure was only available for the American sample, and the reliability
of this three-item scale was .68. We used the natural log of the employability rating for the
analyses due to a skewed distribution.
Job satisfaction. For both samples, general job satisfaction was measured with the three
items used by Judge et al. (1995). These items were the Gallup Poll measure of job satisfaction,
the non-graphic version of the G. M. Faces Scale, and an adapted version of the Fordyce
Percent Time Satisfied Item. Because the three items used different response formats, they
were standardized before being combined (=.83 for the American sample, =.78 for the
European sample).
Life satisfaction. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin,
1985) measures asks individuals to respond to five general statements about their life (If I had
to live my life over again, I would change almost nothing). The of this scale was .88 for the
Americans and .80 for the European sample.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
21/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 18
Career satisfaction. Career satisfaction was measured with the five-item scale
developed by Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990), which asks individuals to report
their satisfaction with five aspects of their career (overall success, progress toward career goals,
income, advancement, development of new skills). For the American sample, =.89. For the
Europeans, =.85.
Human capital variables. For the American sample, all human capital variables were
taken from the search firms database, which indicated the university attended and degree
received. Level of education was the highest degree received (coded 0=bachelor's degree,
1=master's degree or higher). Whether the executive's highest degree was from an Ivy League
school was coded 1=yes, 0=no. Consistent with Judge et al. (1995), quality of the executives
highest degree was measured using The Gourman Report (Gourman, 1993), which rates
university quality using a continuous scale ranging from 1.0 to 5.0. The Gourman rating was
applied to the university from which the executive's highest degree was granted, based on the
rating of the major in which the degree was earned. Whether or not the executive occupied a
position on a corporate board of directors, years of job tenure, years of organizational tenure,
and international experience (coded 1=yes, 0=no) were collected from information in the search
firms database. For the European sample, all of these human capital variables were measured
with items on the survey, with the following exceptions: information on education quality and
prestige was not available, nor was information on whether the executive served on a board of
directors. Nearly all business-oriented degrees in Europe are in economics, so we used an
economics major dummy variable for the Europeans rather than a business major dummy
variable.
Motivational variables. For both American and European samples, hours worked per
week, number of evenings worked per month, number of hours per week the executive wished
to work were assessed with survey questions. Work centrality was measured by asking the
individual to assign 100 points to five different life domains (work, family, religion, leisure, and
community) (MOW International Research Team, 1987).
Covariance Structure Analysis
Covariance structure analysis, estimated in the present study using LISREL 8 (Jreskog
& Srbom, 1993), was used to test the hypothesized model shown in Figure 1. The model
included the two indirect paths: (1) from the personality traits to the motivation and human
capital variables, and (2) from the motivation and human capital variables to extrinsic and
intrinsic career success. It also included the direct link from personality traits to extrinsic and
intrinsic career success. LISREL coefficient estimates and standard errors for direct, indirect,
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
22/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 19
and total effects were used to test significance. Due to the complexity of this model and the prior
evidence of construct validity for the personality dimensions, only the manifest variable model
was tested. Two models were estimatedone for the American sample and one for the
European sample. The structure of the models were identical except that some of the variables
included in the American model were not available in the European sample (quality of highest
degree, Ivy League graduate, and director position). Because the Big Five traits, and the
intrinsic success variables, were measured with error, these measures were corrected for
unreliability.
When evaluating the results of a covariance structure analysis, it is important to evaluate
its overall fit. Accordingly, we report the following fit statistics: chi-square (2), Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RSEA), Goodness-of-fit Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI),
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Incremental Fit Index (IFI) (Medsker, Williams, & Holahan,
1994). Although levels of the 2statistic cannot be interpreted independent of the sample size,
rules of thumb suggest that the RSEA should be no greater than .10 while values of GFI, NFI,
CFI, and IFI should be greater than .90 (Medsker et al., 1994).
Results
Tables 1 and 2 contain descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the study
variables for the American and European samples, respectively. In both samples, restriction of
range was notable only for CEO proximity, which reached an out of bounds value (restricted
range based on 2 standard deviations from the mean). As we will see, this apparently did not
preclude significant relationships with the other variables in the model, though it may make
findings conservative with regard to CEO proximity.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
23/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 20
Table 1
Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Intercorrelations of Study Variables (American Sample)
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Log remuneration 11.83 0.57 ---2. Log ascendancy 1.95 0.51 25 ---3. Log CEO proximity -0.71 0.60 30 21 ---
4. Log employability rating 1.49 0.01 22 01 08 ---5. Job satisfaction 0.00 2.60 11 10 06 07 ---6. Life satisfaction 25.13 5.83 16 07 04 10 43 ---7. Career satisfaction 24.58 6.13 24 13 13 11 45 65 ---8. Evenings worked per month 5.17 4.39 19 10 05 08 01 -01 03 ---9. Hours worked per week 56.52 10.68 18 09 05 08 05 -02 02 23 ---10. Hours of work desired 48.45 9.57 18 05 04 05 06 07 03 09 48 ---11. Work centrality 38.68 15.87 07 04 05 -02 03 -16 -04 08 17 10 ---12. Board of directors position 0.01 0.15 16 05 06 05 04 00 04 00 06 00 02 ---13. Graduate degree 0.72 0.62 07 -18 -01 -03 00 -04 -03 -02 03 05 08 06 ---14. Quality of highest degree 2.36 2.02 16 -08 03 08 -02 -02 -01 -04 00 05 05 04 24 ---15. Ivy League graduate 0.10 0.30 19 -06 02 09 01 02 01 01 -02 04 05 03 13 3616. Business degree 0.63 0.48 06 04 07 03 -05 -01 -05 -01 00 05 03 03 01 1617. Engineering degree 0.12 0.33 00 08 -03 00 02 00 03 08 -02 03 -01 -01 -14 -0618. Law degree 0.01 0.18 09 -11 02 -13 -02 -04 -06 -06 02 01 01 04 35 1319. Job tenure 3.37 4.10 -01 -02 04 -01 -01 -02 -05 -02 -08 -08 03 03 -07 -0120. Organizational tenure 5.88 6.50 03 -02 -19 -03 -03 05 01 00 -05 -04 00 01 -07 -02
21. International experience 0.36 0.48 16 11 09 04 -01 -05 -02 12 03 00 07 03 06 0722. Neuroticism 25.27 6.16 -12 -15 -07 -02 -22 -32 -25 -01 01 -09 03 -03 07 0323. Extroversion 45.90 5.21 04 11 06 05 15 24 18 06 09 09 -02 -01 -12 -0624. Openness 41.25 5.54 04 -01 03 06 03 02 05 06 08 05 08 01 13 0525. Agreeableness 43.84 4.93 -09 -03 -02 -05 03 15 07 -05 -06 -04 -08 -03 00 -0126. Conscientiousness 49.48 4.98 04 06 04 -01 01 09 08 02 05 05 04 02 -02 -04
Table 1 Continues
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
24/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 21
Table 1 (Continued)
Variable 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
16. Ivy League Graduate ---17. Business degree 13 ---
18. Engineering degree -09 -49 ---19. Law degree -01 -25 -07 ---20. Job tenure -02 -03 05 00 ---21. Organizational tenure -01 -07 08 02 25 ---22. International experience 10 03 05 -03 01 -03 ---23. Neuroticism -01 -02 -03 08 -02 -04 -01 ---24. Extroversion -01 -03 00 -03 -02 00 -01 -42 ---25. Openness 07 -13 -02 05 -02 -03 05 -10 24 ---26. Agreeableness -02 -02 -03 -02 -04 02 -07 -30 32 09 ---27. Conscientiousness 00 02 02 -02 -01 03 03 -35 29 00 18 ---
Notes: Decimals omitted from correlations. Because an accomplishment (i.e., employability) rating was only available for roughlyhalf (N=818) of the sample, all correlations were computed using pairwise deletion. Except for employability, correlations .07aresignificant at p < .01; those .05are significant at p < .05. With employability, correlations .10are significant at p < .01; those .07are significant at p < .05.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
25/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 22
Table 2Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Intercorrelations of Study Variables (European Sample)
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Log remuneration 11.86 0.46 ---2. Log ascendancy 1.36 .53 36 ---3. Log CEO proximity -0.98 0.58 61 38 ---
4. Job satisfaction 0.00 2.50 25 15 28 ---5. Life satisfaction 26.25 4.41 13 05 10 35 ---6. Career satisfaction 26.20 4.71 29 18 29 45 57 ---7. Evenings worked per month 5.97 4.72 19 12 13 02 -05 04 ---8. Hours worked per week 56.52 8.81 21 14 13 08 -01 09 21 ---9. Hours of work desired 48.94 8.40 17 10 11 09 03 04 12 59 ---10. Work centrality 42.77 13.58 07 00 05 02 -12 01 08 21 19 ---11. Graduate degree 0.70 0.46 04 -03 01 00 -01 -01 -04 03 02 03 ---12. Economics degree 0.55 0.50 15 11 10 04 03 08 -04 01 02 04 21 ---13. Engineering degree 0.32 0.47 -04 -05 -01 -04 00 -04 09 04 06 -01 -20 -35 ---14. Law degree 0.01 0.28 04 -01 01 -01 -04 -05 01 02 00 -02 17 -05 -19 ---15. Job tenure 3.17 3.00 16 -03 20 03 00 00 -07 -10 -09 -05 -11 -02 -03 0216. Organizational tenure 7.15 6.87 12 15 08 08 02 03 -06 -03 -03 -02 -09 -04 -04 0117. International experience 0.63 0.48 09 12 11 05 05 04 15 07 09 01 -01 02 03 -0118. Neuroticism 25.59 5.56 -10 -04 -04 -20 -27 -21 -02 -12 -18 -08 -03 -01 -03 0319. Extroversion 43.48 4.79 18 17 14 18 21 22 11 17 17 08 -02 05 -01 -0420. Openness 40.02 4.89 04 01 00 -01 00 06 04 04 00 01 07 -04 -05 01
21. Agreeableness 40.31 4.59 -06 -03 -09 02 07 08 -07 -02 -05 -04 07 -06 -02 -0422. Conscientiousness 47.30 4.80 09 04 00 05 18 17 04 12 14 12 -02 06 00 -08
Table 2 Continues
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
26/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 23
Table 2 (Continued)
Variable 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
16. Job tenure ---17. Organizational tenure 46 ---18. International experience -10 -03 ---19. Neuroticism 04 04 -02 ---20. Extroversion -08 -07 13 -38 ---
21. Openness -05 -07 06 -18 23 ---22. Agreeableness -04 -02 -04 -18 10 11 ---23. Conscientiousness -05 -06 07 -39 33 06 12 ---
Notes: Decimals omitted from correlations. Correlations .07are significant at p < .01; those .05are significant at p < .05.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
27/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 24
The correlation matrices for the American and European samples are fairly similar, and
the measures behaved as expected. The three intrinsic career success measures are
moderately correlated. Extrinsic and intrinsic career success are moderately correlated, with
intrinsic career success among the European sample being somewhat more strongly positively
related to CEO proximity.
Among the human capital and motivation variables, actual and desired hours of work are
positively correlated, reflecting that executives control their work schedules. In the U.S. sample,
having an engineering degree relates negatively to having a business degree, and the quality of
the highest degree relates moderately positively to having a degree from an Ivy League
university.
The bivariate correlations between the Big Five traits and career success variables are
relatively small, but follow a consistent pattern. All intrinsic success measures have a negative
correlation with neuroticism and a positive correlation with extroversion, in both samples.
Moreover, these correlations are not corrected for measurement error, and do not reflect
possible suppression effects from other variables, limitations that are remedied in the LISREL
model.
The hypothesized LISREL models were based on Figure 1, and fit the data well for both
the American and European samples. The fit statistics for the American sample were:
2(148,1505)=393.82 (p < .01), RMSEA=.03, GFI=.98, NFI=.94, CFI=.96, and IFI=.96. The fit
statistics for the European sample were: 2(109,1315)=497.45 (p < .01), RMSEA=.05, GFI=.97,NFI=.91, CFI=.92, and IFI=.93. For clarity the results are presented in tables, rather than as
coefficients on a path diagram. Tables 3 through 7 show the complete results, and have been
arranged in right-to-left order, to correspond directly to the hypothesized model of Figure 1.
Tables 3 and 4 depict the total, direct and indirect effects of the Big Five personality traits on
each extrinsic and intrinsic career success measure. The total effects of Tables 3 and 4 reflect
the combined effects of all the paths (all three arrows in Figure 1) from each personality trait to
each career success measure. The direct effects reflect the upper arrow of Figure 1. The
indirect effects reflect the combined effects of the two middle arrows in Figure 1. Tables 5 and
6 depict the relationships between the two right-hand boxes in Figure 1 the effects of
motivation and human capital variables on each of the career success variables for the
American and European samples, respectively. Finally, Table 7 reflects the relationships
between the two left-hand boxes in Figure 1 the effects of each of the Big Five personality
traits on the human capital and motivation variables for both samples.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
28/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 25
For there to be indirect effects between personality and career success, a necessary
(though not sufficient) requirement is significant associations between career success and the
motivation and human capital variables. Therefore, we will first establish the existence and
pattern of associations between career success and motivation or human capital variables in
Tables 5 and 6. Then, we proceed to the key question of this study whether, and in what way,
the Big Five traits associate with extrinsic and intrinsic career success, tracing any indirect
effects from Tables 3 and 4 through the other tables.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
29/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 26
Table 3
Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of Big Five Traits on Career Success: American Sample
Extrinsic Success Intrinsic Success
Big Five Trait Remuneration Ascendancy CEOProximity
EmployabilityRating
JobSatisfaction
LifeSatisfaction
CareerSatisfaction
Neuroticism
Direct -.30** -.21** -.10 -.03 -.42** -.42** -.41**Indirect -.01 .00 .00 -.02 .01 -.01 .02Total -.31** -.21** -.10 -.05 -.41** -.43** -.39**
ExtroversionDirect .04 .08 .10 .14 .20* .22* .16*Indirect .01 .07** .02 .00 -.01 -.01 .02Total .05 .15 .12 .14 .19* .21* .18*
OpennessDirect -.02 -.03 .01 .03 -.10 -.09 -.05Indirect .06** -.04* .00 .01 .04** -.01 .01Total .04 -.07 .01 .04 -.06 -.10 -.04
AgreeablenessDirect -.24** -.14** -.14** -.15** -.19** -.09 -.20**Indirect -.08** -.05** -.03 -.01 .00 .03* .02
Total -.32** -.19** -.17** -.16** -.19** -.06 -.18**
ConscientiousnessDirect -.07 -.05 -.01 -.04 -.23** -.15** -.12*Indirect .03 .00 .00 -.01 .01 -.02 -.01Total -.04 -.05 -.01 -.05 -.22** -.17** -.13*
Note: * p < .05 (two-tailed); ** p < .01 (two-tailed).
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
30/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 27
Table 4
Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of Big Five Traits on Career Success: European Sample
Extrinsic Success Intrinsic Success
Big Five Trait Remuneration Ascendancy CEOProximity
JobSatisfaction
Life Satisfaction CareerSatisfaction
NeuroticismDirect -.05 .03 -.07 -.28** -.29** -.19**Indirect -.01 .01 .00 .00 .01 .02Total -.06 .04 -.07 -.28** -.28** -.17**
ExtroversionDirect .26** .22** .30** .33** .25** .32**Indirect .05* .04** .02 .00 -.02 .00Total .31** .26** .32** .33** .23** .32**
OpennessDirect -.02 -.03 -.10* -.17** -.15** -.09Indirect -.02 -.02 .00 .00 .00 .00Total -.04 -.05 -.10* -.17** -.15** -.09
AgreeablenessDirect -.11* -.02 -.17** -.10 -.03 -.05
Indirect -.06** -.03 -.04* .00 .03* .01Total -.17** -.05 -.21** -.10 .00 -.04
ConscientiousnessDirect -.02 -.04 -.18** -.20** .04 -.01Indirect .01 .00 .01 .00 -.02 .00Total -.01 -.04 -.17** -.20** .02 -.01
Note: * p < .05 (two-tailed); ** p < .01 (two-tailed).
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
31/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 28
Table 5
Direct Effects of Motivation and Human Capital Variables on Career Success: American Sample
Extrinsic Success Intrinsic Success
Remuneration Ascendancy CEOProximity EmployabilityRating JobSatisfaction LifeSatisfaction CareerSatisfaction
Motivational variables
Evenings worked .18** .05 .05 .05 -.01 .00 .02Hours worked .11** .07* .02 .05 .05 -.02 .02Hours of work desired .10** -.01 .02 .00 .00 .06 -.02Work centrality .00 .03 .01 -.05 .04 -.16** -.04
Human capital variables
Director .13** .03 .02 .04 .03 -.01 .02Graduate degree -.01 -.14** -.05* .00 .06 .04 .03Education quality .10** -.04 .01 .09** -.01 .00 .02Ivy League graduate .15** -.05 -.01 .05 .01 .03 .00Business degree .07 .08* .11** -.03 -.10* -.04 -.08*
Engineering degree .02 .08* .02 -.02 -.03 -.02 -.02Law degree .13** -.01 .06* -.15** -.04 -.03 -.08*Job tenure -.04 -.04 .06* .00 -.02 -.04 -.09*Organizational tenure .07* -.01 -.16** -.01 -.03 .07* .04International experience .11** .09** .05* .01 -.03 .04 -.05
Notes: Table entries are standardized path coefficients; * p < .05 (two-tailed); ** p < .01 (two-tailed).
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
32/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 29
Table 6
Direct Effects of Motivation and Human Capital Variables on Career Success: European Sample
Extrinsic Success Intrinsic Success
Remuneration Ascendancy CEOProximity
JobSatisfaction
LifeSatisfaction
CareerSatisfaction
Motivational variables
Evenings worked .16** .07* .07* -.02 -.08* .00Hours worked .13** .08* .06 .03 -.04 .08Hours of work desired .05 .01 .03 .00 -.02 -.09*Work centrality .01 -.04 .02 -.01 -.19** -.04
Human capital variables
Graduate degree .06* -.03 .06* .02 .01 .00Economics degree .15** .09** .06 .00 .00 .05Engineering degree .02 -.02 .02 -.07 -.01 -.04Law degree .04 -.01 -.01 -.03 -.03 -.05Job tenure .15** -.15** .14** -.02 -.02 -.06Organizational tenure .10** .22** .00 .11** .05 .07International experience .03 .06* .06* .03 .04 -.01
Notes: Table entries are standardized path coefficients; * p < .05 (two-tailed); ** p < .01 (two-tailed).
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
33/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 30
Table 7
Direct Effects of the Big Five Traits on Motivation and Human Capital Variables: Both Samples
Motivation Variables Human Capital Variables
Eveningsworked
Hoursworked
Hrs workdesired
Workcentrality
Graduatedegree
Businessdegree
Engineerdegree
Lawdegree
Jobtenure
Organiz.tenure
Inter.exp
American Sample
Neuroticism .03 .11* -.09 .02 .01 -.05 -.07 .12* -.10 -.04 -.06Extroversion .15* .22** .14* -.06 -.34** .02 -.01 -.02 -.04 .00 -.06Openness .04 .06 .02 .14** .24** -.17** -.02 .08 -.01 -.05 .10*
Agreeableness -.14** -.16** -.17** -.12* .11* -.03 -.07 .02 -.07 .01 -.12*Conscientiousness .01 .07 .00 .12** .10* .00 .01 .04 -.02 .01 .07
European Sample
Neuroticism .04 -.04 -.16** -.03 -.04 .02 -.07 -.03 -.02 -.02 .08Extroversion .15** .15** .13** .03 -.07 .06 -.01 -.02 -.07 -.03 .16**Openness .03 -.01 -.07 .00 .09* -.06 -.07 .03 -.04 -.08* .05
Agreeableness -.12* -.06 -.12* -.08 .09* -.08 -.04 -.05 -.07 -.02 -.07Conscientiousness .01 .05 .04 .12** -.03 .07 -.02 -.10* -.02 -.05 .06
Notes: Table entries are standardized path coefficients; * p < .05 (two-tailed); ** p < .01 (two-tailed). Due to space constraints, minimal significanteffects, and that the effects are not available for the European sample, the path coefficients for director, quality of major, and Ivy league degree
are not shown.
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
34/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 31
Motivation and Human Capital Variables Associated with Career Success
Remuneration. For the Americans (Table 5), remuneration positively associated with the
motivation variables of actual and desired work time, and with the human capital variables of
director, education quality, organizational tenure and international experience, as expected
(e.g., Judge, et al., 1995). The European pattern (Table 6) was similar to the American sample,
though job tenure was significant for the European sample, and international experience was
non-significant.
Ascendancy. Motivation and human capital significantly related to ascendancy, though
not as consistently as remuneration, and with some interesting contrasts between the two
samples. International experience was positively associated with ascendancy in both samples,
and having a graduate degree was negatively associated with ascendancy among the
Americans, perhaps reflecting that those with graduate degrees enter more technical career
paths. Job tenure was negatively associated, and organization tenure positively associated with
ascendancy among the Europeans, but not the Americans. For European managers, rapid
promotion means spending less time in each job, but careers may span fewer organizations.
CEO proximity. Motivation variables showed weak though positively associations with
CEO proximity in both samples, while human capital variables were significant. In both samples,
greater CEO proximity associated with international experience and job tenure (less job
switching after reaching high levels). Having a graduate degree associated negatively with CEO
proximity among the Americans (Table 5), but positively for the Europeans (Table 6). Abusiness/economics or law degree and organizational tenure associated with CEO proximity
only in the American sample.
Employability Rating. This measure was available only for the American sample (Table
5), and showed few relationships with motivation and human capital variables, associating
positively with education quality and negatively with having a law degree. We would expect
fewer indirect effects on employability rating, in light of these results. The search firm raters may
be trying to capture less observable characteristics, to compliment the existing information
available in the search firm records.
Intrinsic career success (job, life and career satisfaction). Motivation and human capital
variables were only moderately associated with intrinsic career success, in both samples. Work
centrality was most consistent, negatively associating with life satisfaction in both samples,
perhaps reflecting an over-emphasis on work. Among Americans, a business degree associated
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
35/51
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
36/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 33
capital and motivation. The implications for this finding regarding differences between the two
cultures are discussed below.
We can empirically examine the indirect effects through the extended model of Figure 1,
and the coefficients in Tables 5, 6, and 7. Notably, both samples revealed a significant indirect
positive effect on ascendancy. For the Americans this seems to reflect a path through greater
hours worked and less likelihood of having a graduate degree. For the Europeans, the path from
extroversion to both ascendancy and remuneration also reflects greater evenings and hours
worked, but uniquely reflects greater international experience. Extroversion and international
experience correlate more strongly among Europeans (bivariate correlation of .13 in Table 2)
than among Americans (bivariate correlation of -.01 in Table 1).
The results for extroversion and intrinsic success showed remarkable consistency
between Europe and the U.S., considering the differences in extrinsic success. Tables 3 and 4
show that for both the Europeans and Americans managers, intrinsic success exhibited positive
associations with extroversion, supporting Hypothesis 2b, and these were solely direct, failing to
support Hypothesis 4.
Openness and Career Success
Openness revealed the fewest significant total effects, and the least consistent pattern of
all the personality dimensions. Among the Europeans, effects were direct and negative on CEO
proximity and both job and life satisfaction. Among Americans, the effects were indirect and
positive for salary but negative for ascendancy. The positive indirect effect on remuneration
seems to reflect a path through greater international experience. The weak negative indirect
effect on ascendancy seems to reflect a path through having a graduate degree and not having
a business degree, offset by having international experience.
Agreeableness and Career Success
Tables 3 and 4 reveal agreeableness to be negatively associated with extrinsic career
success, for both samples. For both European and the American managers, agreeableness
exhibited negative direct, indirect, and total associations with remuneration and CEO proximity.Among the Americans, this was also true for ascendancy and for the direct effect on
employability rating. The direct effects suggest that in both samples, more agreeable individuals
achieve less extrinsic success, over and above any effects on human capital variables.
Among the Europeans, the indirect effects for both remuneration and CEO proximity
seem to reflect a path through which more agreeable managers work fewer evenings and less
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
37/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 34
frequently have a business degree, offset by more frequently having a graduate degree. Among
the Americans, the negative indirect effects on extrinsic success seem to reflect a path through
which more agreeable managers have lower desired and actual work time (especially for
remuneration), more likely have a graduate degree, and have less international experience.
The two samples differ regarding agreeableness and intrinsic success, with negative
direct effects among the Americans for job and career satisfaction, but non-significant effects for
the Europeans. Being more agreeable seems to associate with dissatisfaction for American
managers, beyond its effects on their human capital and motivation, while European managers
satisfaction seems unaffected.
Conscientiousness and Career Success
The bottom section of Tables 3 and 4 contain the results for the final personality
dimension conscientiousness. Conscientiousness effects were all negative, and always direct,
not indirect. The pattern differed between the two samples. For the Americans,
conscientiousness reveals negative associations with all intrinsic success dimensions, but none
of the extrinsic dimensions. For the Europeans, the negative associations reached significance
for one extrinsic success factor CEO proximity and one intrinsic success factor job
satisfaction. These results failed to support Hypothesis 3a and contradicted Hypothesis 3b, for
the Americans, and moderately contradicted Hypothesis 3a and 3b for the Europeans. The lack
of indirect effects failed to support Hypothesis 4 for both samples.
Discussion
This study set out to extend prior models showing career success to be associated with
motivational and human capital variables by: (1) Broadening the set of career success indicators
to include CEO proximity, employability ratings by search professionals, and life satisfaction; (2)
Incorporating a comprehensive array of enduring personality traits to complement the traditional
array of human capital and motivation factors; and (3) Examining potential cross-cultural
differences by comparing European and American managers. Results suggested that each of
these extensions provided unique new insights into career success.
Adding CEO proximity was valuable in that it revealed a different pattern from the two
more typically studied career success variables. CEO proximity exhibited fewer significant direct
and indirect relationships than remuneration or ascendancy. This may suggest that the array of
motivation, human capital, and personality variables is more relevant to the more externally
anchored career success measures than to hierarchical position internal to the current
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
38/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 35
organization. CEO proximity did reveal a different relationship with openness and
conscientiousness, comparing the U.S. and the European samples, which suggests that adding
CEO proximity to the array of outcome variables is useful, especially considering that these two
variables are among the least previously studied.
Employability ratings were available only for the U.S. sample, and the direct and indirect
effects with employability ratings were similar to remuneration and ascendancy, but reached
statistical significance only for agreeableness. It would appear that future research might strive
to create better measures of this construct.
Similarly, life satisfaction behaved, for the most part, similarly to job and career
satisfaction, though revealing a stronger negative relationship with work centrality than job or
career satisfaction (Table 5), suggesting it may have uniquely captured tendencies to
overemphasize work. The similarity between life and job/career satisfaction patterns revealed
here reinforces previous research, and may be especially true for managers and executives,
who may well have a closer association between job, career, and life outcomes. This is not to
say that life satisfaction is not a useful career success measure, but we may expect it to behave
more distinctly among other types of workers.
Value of Comparing Europe and the U.S.
The value of a comparative approach was vividly demonstrated by these results. For
many of the personality dimensions, results for European and American executives differed,
often in ways that seem logical and consistent with the available theory and empirical evidence.
Unfortunately, limited prior research, and the lack of theory specifically addressing cross-cultural
personality and career success relationships preclude all but speculative conclusions.
Nonetheless, the striking differences between the two groups provide support for the value of
such comparisons and, we hope, initial empirical results from which to build such theories.
Are Personality Effects Mediated by Human Capital and Motivation?
Tables 3 and 4 revealed far more significant direct than indirect effects, but still a
number of interesting indirect effects emerged. Generally, the indirect effects were moreprevalent for extrinsic success dimensions than intrinsic. This is logical, given that extrinsic
success elements are more objective, and thus can be more easily tied to the objective
motivation and human capital variables through remuneration and promotion patterns.
The effects of motivation and human capital variables on career success outcomes (the
arrow connecting the two right-hand boxes in Figure 1) replicated prior research (Tables 5 and
8/12/2019 Personality Executive Career Sucess
39/51
Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success WP 99-12
Page 36
6), so there appeared to be ample potential for personality to associate indirectly with career
success through these variables. The two samples were similar, with links between motivation
and human capital variables most prevalent for remuneration, ascendancy, and CEO proximity.
Employability ratings and intrinsic satisfaction measures significantly related to some, but fewer
motivational and human capital variables. This pattern is not surprising, considering that
remuneration, ascendancy, and CEO proximity are more objective elements of success, and
thus could be expected to relate more closely to the objective motivation and human capital
variables.
The pattern for international experience is notable in that that it had a positive
association with ascendancy and CEO proximity among both Europeans and Americans, but it
associated positively with remuneration only for the Americans (bottom rows of Tables 5 and 6).
This might reflect that American firms must pay more for executives capable and willing to take
international assignments. This is supported in Tables 1 and 2, which show that international
experience was less prevalent among American managers (36%) than European managers
(63%).
Table 7 depicted the paths corresponding to the left-hand arrow in Figure 1. Generally,
the motivation variables of desired and actual time-worked, and having a graduate degree were
most often related to personality dimensions in both samples. Work centrality associated with
more personality dimensions among Americans than Europeans. International experience
presented an interesting contrast, in that it was significantly more likely for American managers
that had higher openness and lower agreeableness, while among Europeans it was more likely
only for more extroverted managers. This supports prior suggestions that openness associates
with taking and succeeding in international assignments, but only for the Americans.
Putting the two indirect arrows of Figure 1 together, agreeableness presented the most
consistent indirect effects, negatively associated with remuneration and CEO proximity in both
samples, and with ascendancy in the U.S. sample. In both samples, this reflected a negative
association with actual and desired time worked and a positive association with having a
graduate degree. Agreeableness was also associated with dissatisfaction among theseexecutives,